I apologize for not writing up the post I said I would, I put other things in my life as a priority and even tonight I'm not putting in the time I should. So this will be a quick post.
Post reference:
here Dan vogel wrote:Both generally accurate and false memories are possible, but which occurred in this instance? Unfortunately, we can’t test the Conneaut witnesses, and no one in their day bothered to test them. They only said what their heard or read they heard or read before. No one offered information directly from their memories, which could be checked against the Book of Mormon. To me their memories seem too convenient. Aron Wright is certain that Spalding wrote a romance that dealt with the lost tribes leaving Jerusalem, but that is highly suspect. This would place his certainty about the names remembered into question as well.
If Loftus were to test you, she might tell you that your parents used to read a certain book to you when you were a child, and then she would read portions to you and ask if you can remember things about it. Convinced of the authority of her information, you would bend your mind to find memories. You might think some thing sounded vaguely familiar. Six months later, Loftus would interview you again, and she might find that these vague memories are clearer. Six months later, they might have become certain memories. And if she told you that it was a false memory, you might not believe her.
As I have repeatedly stated, the false memory theory is only a way of explaining the Spalding witnesses if the Mormon testimony is deemed true.
I'm not sure why you think the Mormon testimony is strong or which testimonies in particular you are referring to. On the whole what I've read of the Book of Mormon witnesses is that they aren't credible and I think Loftus's studies applies more to them than the Conneaut witnesses but that's another issue.
Just dealing with the Conneaut witnesses and comparing their statements to the Loftus's studies I believe the term she uses is "rich-false memory" implantation, there are so many dissimilarities that it is wrong to be using those studies to draw a conclusion on the Conneaut witnesses.
Here are some of the difference.
- she enlisted parents who lied about an event of the subjects..a trip to a shopping mall at the age of 5 in which the subjects got lost, or a wedding in which the subject at the age of 5 spilled the punch bowl on the bride
- a trip to a shopping mall if a mundane common occurrence, and to some extent so are weddings. People appreciate at the age of 5 their memories are weak. If the parents are telling subjects those events occurred of course with the appreciation of an extremely weak age 5 memory one would assume parents might be better informed.
- the shopping trip, wedding ..is a one time event
- it took about 3 sessions and only 1/4 of the subjects thought the event occurred
Compare this with the conneaut witnesses
- they weren't 5 years old..when memories (according to Loftus) are weak, they were adults when they heard Spalding read the manuscript or they themselves read it.
- it wasn't a one time event as in Loftus' study, the conneaut witnesses said they heard or read the Spalding manuscript many times ..in one case over 100 times, in others over many months
- a story written in King James english is unique..as opposed to a mundane shopping mall trip. The repetitive use of the phrase "and it came to pass" has a memorable stickiness factor (term by Malcolm Gladwell) , unique names while they may be difficult to remember or likely to be remembered if ones memory is jogged.
- evidence does not indicate Hurlbut devious or deceptive, he brought back MSCC and showed it to some witnesses when he didn't need to do that.
- the Conneaut did note that some of the story they'd forgotten..but some aspects they clearly remembered. This is common, people do often know when their memories are fuzzy versus clear.
Summary: Memory on the whole is fairly good. If one sets up situations which Loftus did, using parents to lie, testing people's confidence in their memory at the age of 5, choosing a mundane event that wouldn't necessarily stick out on one's mind..it is understandable that Loftus would have some success and convince people to remember that one event that allegedly happened to them at the age of 5. But with all that set up involved even she wasn't all that successful with only a 25 % success rate. The Conneaut witnesses say they were very familiar with Spaldings story, it wasn't a case on only reading or hearing it once. They were adults when they heard or read it, not 5 years old. They noted some aspects they'd forgotten which would be realistic after 20 years. But it is also realistic that some aspects of the story would stick in their minds. In particular aspects with a stickiness factor such as the story was written in Biblical language.
Dan wrote:Roger wrote: But NOT ridiculous suggestions and not with a 100% success ratio and only in cases where the particants were generally not clear to begin with, which does not apply to the assertions about Nephi and Lehi or "and it came to pass."
Actually, Loftus was doing something a lot harder than suggesting the contents of a book once read; she was planting memories of events in a life, such as getting lost in a mall and being afraid or visiting Disneyland and taking pictures with Donald Duck (really a Warner’s Brother’s character). Of course her studies weren’t 100% successful, but neither was Hurlbut’s. Just because someone expresses certainty about their memories doesn’t mean they are accurate. Loftus found that vague memories became certain memories with time and repetition.
Oi Vey..she was planting a memory in the life of subjects for when they were 5, using parents to lie about a
one time common event in which individuals would probably think their parents knew better than they did that the event happened. And even then she only had a 25% success rate..and who knows how long those people would have stayed convinced of that one time mundane event. No she was not doing something a lot harder. It's too bad some of us aren't very logical.
Dan no one is arguing that memory is perfect but the Loftus work is just not applicable to the Conneaut witnesses. It's actually probably applicable to the Book of Mormon witnesses for example Martin Harris in which he was pressured to see something, he was encouraged to use his imagination, and given repeated talks on what he was supposed to see.
But the crime scene event studies that Loftus does in not applicable. They are short term events in which people are tested on small details and the main point of that study is to show that witnesses can easily be wrong on small details and if witnesses are unsure of that detail, then simple suggestions can influence them to think they saw that suggested detail. But details seen briefly is not what Conneaut witnesses experienced. They had a rich memory of reading and hearing read a Spalding manuscript which they acknowledge story line details they have a poor memory.
As far as memory implantation via therapy in which patients think they were abused this is because the therapists used various techniques such encouraging patients to imagine, added to that that the therapists are trusted authorities and that the therapy occurs over a long period of time and some patients believed they were abused or whatever the therapist had been suggesting. I suppose they don't know what percentage of people who experienced this succumbed to the implant information..hence the reason no percentage given. There weren't studies.
And as far as the rich-false implant again techniques by Loftus and others ..techniques were used such as enlisting parents, some sort of authority, and normal type events are used, but even with all the set up involved..there was only 25 % or less success rate.
If you are going to use any of these studies to argue false memory of the Conneaut witnesses then I think you need to better understand what exactly these studies entail and what they do say. You apparently do not understand and are using them incorrectly.